From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 16 13:16:24 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4020D16A405 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:16:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from wjv.com (fl-65-40-24-38.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.40.24.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF23B13C4CC for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:16:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (localhost.wjv.com [127.0.0.1]) by wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6GDGJkb038264; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:16:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l6GDGECH038263; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:16:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:16:08 -0400 From: Bill Vermillion To: Richard Tector Message-ID: <20070716131608.GA38223@wjv.com> References: <20070715145528.GA31824@wjv.com> <469A51CA.2080506@thekeelecentre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <469A51CA.2080506@thekeelecentre.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park ReplyTo: bv@wjv.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on bilver.wjv.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BPF question X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bv@wjv.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:16:24 -0000 After replacing Richard Tector with a small shell script on Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 17:56 , the following appeared on stdout: > Bill Vermillion wrote: > >I have been setting the bpf parameter in the kernel configuration > >file to 10 [I forget which program needed that]. Prior to > >that I had usually run with about 4. I also saw that on > >a 4.11 installation I had it set at 40 for 'nessus'. > >My config file had this line. > > > >device bpf 10 > > > >I just updated the system from 6.2-p5 to 6.2-p6, and I got > >a syntax error on that line. > > > >Removing the '10' and leaving the line as: > > > >device bpf > > > >got rid of the syntax error. > > > >I haven't seen, or maybe I just missed it, and information that > >we don't use a numerical parameter anymore. > > > >So has this been changed, or is there a problem in the p6 > >implementation/installation? I suspect it has been changed but I > >have not noticed it. > > > >Thanks. > > > >BIll > With 5.x and upwards, you no longer need to specify the number of > devices required in the kernel configuration. New device nodes are > created/destroyed on the fly by devfs. > Regards, > Richard Thanks. I never went to the 5.x series, just directly from the 4.11 to 6.1 for my servers. I just thought it was strange that 6.2.p5 had no problems with that line, but 6.2.p6 gave a syntax error. Must be code cleanup. I'll make sure it's not in any further kernel configs. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com